I would be in favor of 3.85 being the default for the Gen 3s.

Failing that, I would at at least make 3.85 a legal option, if some feel strongly about holding on to 3.62.

Best,
Miguel

3.85 mandatory for Majors 1/1/15
3.85 and 3.62 allowed in regionals until 1/1/18 then 3.85 only

Or something along those lines may make good sense?
It would also lighten the initial demand for the 3.85 for Mazda.

or to sharpen this idea:

3.85 mandatory for GEN3 cars competing in Majors effective 1/1/15
3.85 or 3.62 GEN3 cars allowed to compete in Regionals until 12/31/2017, then 3.85 only
SRF2 cars remain as-is and are prohibited from using the 3.85 R&P.

I think Dave S provides some pretty compelling information. When rebuilding the tranny, I would prefer to use new parts. So it would seem that the best time to change the R&P is at the time of the conversion. While it may increase the immediate cost, it will be cheaper in the long run. And, there are at least two tracks so far in the NorthEast that the Gen3 appears likely to favor the new ratio.

Joe

Please enjoy your discussion; as we will enjoy creating actual data over the course of several or many months. You can stop the new email campaign and or polls at the track idea (yes I hear about everything). No customer, transmission rebuilder, prep shop or CSR is going to change things today, next week or next month. The 3.85 was not added to the GEN3 package for 2015; plan accordingly. If generating data does not seem logical, for something only being considered, perhaps R&D is not your area of expertise? Chris Funk put it best on an R&D call, "at some future point we will have to go to the 3.85 OR OTHER OPTION"...to chose the 3.85 now is premature. Perhaps we have other ideas / options...that you are unaware of... for the 3-7 year time frame. The 3.85 for performance sake alone goes against the "only if absolutely necessary" change rule we live by. Triple adjustable shocks are awesome, quads even better!...would you like those? Where do I stop? Read my lips...no new changes!

Eric

I remember some Bush guy saying "read my lips...." and 4 years later he was unemployed! Hope it works out better for you

OK, I'm official nicknaming the 3.85 "Jason"...

Lee Spuhler wrote:Eric

I remember some Bush guy saying "read my lips...." and 4 years later he was unemployed! Hope it works out better for you

That was exactly what I was referring to. The eye roll isn't a wink or smile. It could mean you want me fired. Or it could mean you didn't like Bush. Or you hate taxes.

Thanks Bob B. or maybe this when we hear or see the 385 in a string discussion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCfWHqrYUqo

Thanks Erik! We are set for 2015 I guess - I don't want to spend money frivolously and I am truly excited to hear and see the Gen 3 coming our way - this season will be one for the books on testing and seeing whatever Gen 3's are out on the track. Whatever the data tells you (and us), please keep us posted. I just want the best bang for our buck and may the best R&P ratio win ...

Its seems to me we put test beds out there for a reason. The CSRs should all be testing both gear ratios and if 385 is the best ratio based on that testing then that's what we should use. I plan on a ground up at that time anyway.

All sensible comments Erik, with possibly one exception. Not sure all the recent changes and even the gen3 engine swap fall into the category of "only if absolutely necessary". I can't wait to get my hands on the new engine package, but, surely an argument could be made that there are viable and less expensive solutions to the current 1.9 issues (heads, etc) that could have negated the need to introduce an entirely new engine package.

If "absolutely necessary" includes considerations relative to increasing profitability, than that is a whole different discussion.

The new rotors are a clear example of an exception to the "absolutely necessary" litmus test. We all had access to an unlimited supply of inexpensive rotors, the cars were all able to be stopped with the old rotor supply. Since there is an advantage to the new rotors, to be competitive you need to have them. They are a nice piece, no doubt. (They seem to work great)

Bottom line is that the entire situation is a complex issue with may alternatives. We are putting our trust and racing futures in your hands and hope that good solutions are forthcoming. The r and p is a volatile subject and clearly there are two sides to the discussion. I find the fact that a definitive decision has been made (for 2015) in the absence of adequate r and d to be disconcerting. Does not appear to be a step in the right direction concerning the process of parts/product selection.